House admonishes Wilson for his 'You lie' outburst

Source

I don't know exactly what it means, but I'm sure that it's not going to bode well for Rep. Wilson, at least for his tenure in the House. It's interesting though, that apparently free speech stops at the doors to the Capitol. Whether or not you think that something is proper, we should all, especially a politician, be able to say how we feel (as long as it doesn't endanger someone of course). That's a beauty of America.

I think this here is funny. It's what section 370 of the House rules says can and can't be said:



Source

It might just be me, but if I was the president, I would think having anything surrounding me called a disgrace is a little worse than being called a liar. Perhaps Wilson should've called Obama's speech a disgrace instead?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[edit on 9/15/2009 by octotom]

179 of them were in disagreement? WTF?

Admonish:

1 a : to indicate duties or obligations to b : to express warning or disapproval to especially in a gentle, earnest, or solicitous manner

2 : to give friendly earnest advice or encouragement to

So, 179 of them did not think that it was proper to give a gentle warning? That would be laughable if these fools didn't run our country.

Just my 2-cents

reply to post by octotom

---

While it is a pretty sad and symbolic state of affairs when representatives mistake a presidential address for the set of Jerry Springer ...

... my irony index just exploded at the thought of no good lying bastard politicians admonishing one of theirs for yelling "liar!"

Sheesh ...

Honestly I dont think that wilson was int he wrong at all. You see Obama is a liar flat out. He has broken 99% of his campaign promises as well as constantly lying by omission.

I find this interesting; out of the Republican caucus, only 7 voted to admonish. One of the 7 was from Wilson's home state. .


ROLL CALL

I bet there's an interesting story behind that!

[edit on 9/15/2009 by clay2 baraka]

reply to post by Aggie Man

---

Thanks for the definition. I guess in the end, it's not as bad as it sounds. Unless the House has attached a third meaning to it.


If the 179 that voted no didn't find anything wrong with what he did, why vote to give him a gentle warning?

I was shouting "liar" at the tv box when Obama was giving his little speech.

Wilson just said it for me.

and....................nothing changes.

OOOOHHHH, he was admonished. They really showed him.

One of these days someone like Wilson will come along, and say, "Screw you all, I'm standing my ground. I'm not apolgizing to anyone and I could care less what you think of me. [snip]" That's what America needs now.

This country has lost it's spine....and it's balls.

I am sick of all this apologizing crap. How about? "No" your not getting an apology. Tough! Everybody's a [snip] nowadays. This is not what it was like when I was younger.

---

Censor circumvention and derogatory term removed

[edit on 15/9/09 by masqua]

That's the sad part, they didn't find anything wrong with it. There is a time and place for everything. This was not the time to make an opinionated statement. The POTUS was there to address congress. Protocol for this does not include interjections from congress. Hell, he knew he was in the wrong too...thus the shallow apology.

So what the heck? He WAS LYING! It is a political understanding, that lawyers and politicians lie for a living. But in this case, Obamination is playing the holier than thou card, just like a lying preacher. I say 'WILSON FOR PRESIDENT'!

If only he had made some subtle comment about how Obama's pant were always on fire, maybe we could have avoided this whole mess.

I am disgusted with this whole charade. The house is rife with drunken foolish sots, drug users, womanizers, snots ,homosexuals, pedophiles, cheaters, liars, crooks, tax cheats, special interest panderers, two faced hypocrites...and they think they have to save face and decorum, with this censure of Wilson. HA! I applaud Wilson wholeheartedly. BRAVO, BRAVO...Encore!

The truth hurts,and the Democrats pucker their fundaments while hiding behind this sham...Obama is a Liar! Guess what? Everyone knows it! What part of his being a Machiavellian Politician don't you get yet?

VOTE THEM ALL OUT IN 2010. Send "the One" packing in 2012.

(mod edit: derogatory terms removed.)

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Byrd]

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Confused and Dazed!]

reply to post by Aggie Man

---

It's not that they didn't find anything wrong with it, there was plenty of comments from both sides of the aisle regarding it post speech. Almost completely against it.

They voted against it because this was a partisan issue to try and keep dragging it on after Obama has already accepted the apology and moved on. It is a non issue that was not worthy of the time taken to hold this vote. That is why the majority of Republicans were against it.

He refused to apologize a second time after his first was accepted. Whats wrong with that? It is unnecessary and only serves to drag it out instead of moving on. Just another ploy by the Dems to keep the focus on those horrible Republicans who will do anything to spite Obama.

reply to post by digger2381

---

Oh well, it passed anyway. Oh the power of numbers!

Oh the power of numbers and oh the power of too much time on their hands and obviously nothing better to do!

to our elected "representatives"

A Jerry Springer set??

A Jerry Springer set is typified by our nation 'voting' on Diebold machines for 'representatives' that are criminals of the first order -- murderers, torturers, pedophiles, thieves and liars that are bent on the destruction of this country.

Frankly, I've got a whole range of colorful language expletives that could be applied to this %&^* idiot obama.

Ditto. I thought i was the only one to read this so far and think "Oh my god they actually had a vote?"

With all the pressing issues this country faces and they vote on this. An example of how petty and useless our gov't is.

reply to post by schrodingers dog

---

Can you explain why the MSM was not outraged when Democrats boo'd Bush in the State of the Union speech? Can you explain the lack of outrage when Harry Reid called Bush a "loser" in the senate? Of course not, because the MSM manipulates the outrage in all of you.

Sure it's a waste of time. BUT at my place of employment (and likely most others) we get written up (admonished) for breaking a the policies & procedures. Congress should be no different. Just like my employer, Congress has more important tasks to perform; however, admonishment serves a purpose.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Aggie Man]